Dan Kreher

I don't think that anyone at the MDC knowledgeable of Ozark stream SMB biology would dispute that harvest under existing statewide limits is negatively affecting the overall quality of our stream fisheries. Sure there are other factors at work that are more pervasive and difficult to address, but the limits set 40-50 years ago for management of this species no longer serve the evolving interests of the angling public or the potential for the resource. The smart guys with the biology/fisheries management degrees know that the science behind quality management works in our streams. But overall MDC policy continues to reflect a harvest-based mindset established when the majority of stream fishermen fished for food rather than for sport. No one is proposing to outlaw harvest of SMB but it should be done under a management plan that does not unduly harm the overall quality of the resource while supporting the interests of sport anglers interested in the chance to pursue larger fish in a sustainable fishery. This topic is on the agenda for the MDC Commissioners meeting tomorrow in West Plains. It will require the will of the MDC to make what many on this forum desire -- allow our SMB streams to approach their true potential as world class fisheries.

MDC's recent exploitation results on the six stream sections (Current - 2; Black, Castor, North Fork, Courtois) and the subsequent computer modeling all indicated that average sizes of SMB and the numbers of fish > 12" > 15" and > 18" would increase if the streams were regulated under either an 18" MLL/1 fish or 15" MLL/1 fish limit vs. the statewide 12"/6 regime. While the improvement in numbers was not off the charts due to the impact of natural mortality that removes a certain amount of adult SMB from the population from causes other than legal angler harvest; the population dynamics nevertheless improved to varying degrees across the board. But as the MDC continues to utilize a maximum sustained yield philosophy in the management of these sportfish -- as has been the case overall for the past 40 years -- they saw that in 5 of the 6 areas that yield (defined as the pounds of fish that may be legally harvested under the particular set of regulations) would actually decline. So, as they see this as a negative impact, they did not propose implementing any new regs on any of these new areas outside of the middle section of Current River. On that river section, angler harvest played a larger factor than natural mortality, so they concluded a new reg would effective both to improve the overall quality of the fishery while not negatively impacting yield. My point is that the more restrictive harvest regs did indicate improvement in the size structure and biomass of SMB in these fisheries across the board. But, due to a variety of factors limited overall yield of fillets. As that max sustained yield unfortunately remains the MDC's overall philosophy for the management of this species, need to change in order for quality concerns to take center stage for management of this sportfish.

With all due respect to Joe and other naysayers, need I remind folks that these regulations change proposals are those of the MDC itself. And the four MDC Commissioners will be the ones ratifying these proposals following any modifications proposed as a result of these public comment meetings. So, there will be no vote required in the MO Legislature on these changes to make them laws. That's how our Conservation agency/Commission structure works. These regulations, in their final form,would likely become law March 1, 2017. I also do not consider our four MDC Commissioners as "flunkies" as I have spoken face-to-face with 3 of the 4 of them within the past month. But all are welcome to their opinions, of course, which are freely expressed on this forum in the spirit of our First Amendment.

The MDC is proposing regs changes based on a combination of scientific data, supplemented by angler concerns in an effort to incrementally improve these selected fisheries. Public input on these proposed regulations has been solicited by the MDC in an effort to discuss the merits of these changes and to allow anglers to voice other concerns they may have concerning the management of our stream smallmouth bass fisheries. I have no way of determining the totality of angler sentiment they've received either in person or via online comments either in favor or against these regulations. But, judging by the folks who managed to show up at any of the four public comment meetings which I attended, it seems that public support is strongly behind these changes as a minimum measure with an abundance of even more restrictive, quality based regulations suggested by many. Other than the Current River tournament guys in Van Buren, it seemed that most were in favor of these changes. Based upon the fact that these are MDC's own proposals and that public sentiment expressed appears to be supportive, I'd be betting that these proposals move forward. It is also feasible that, based upon additional angler input, we might see the 18"/1 limit remain on the Gasconade quite possibly to include the lower Big Piney as well -- they either need to have both sections at 18" or put both at 15" as they have already proposed. Other enhancements may be possible as well. The last public comment meeting is this evening in Columbia. If you're in the area, I encourage you to attend. If you cannot make it, continue to send in your comments to the MDC. We can banter back and forth on these issues all we want on this message board -- it can be fun once in awhile -- and sometimes even some knowledge can be gained. Just make sure you direct some of your comments to those at the MDC that shape and control policy. They're the only ones who can affect how our fisheries are managed and how those game laws are enforced.

I think we all are proving that while we may not get any taller as we reach middle age, we seemingly get heavier with each passing year. On a more serious note, 20-inch Ozark stream smallies will never represent a majority of our catch - regardless of what regulations are imposed and vigorously enforced. We all know that more restrictive harvest regs, improved angler education and more aggressive enforcement of violators would all combine to produce more 15-18 inch bronze in our stream fisheries. Can we get more 19-20+ inchers through the funnel with better regs? Absolutely. But due to slow growth rates and natural mortality issues, having 20 inch fish swimming in every pool should not be our expectation (for most streams at least) nor the ruler by which success is measured. It can get better than it is if there is political will -- both among the MDC and smallmouth anglers -- to make it better. I think it is productive that anglers have been able to voice their concerns about the management of our stream fisheries and the enforcement of our game laws directly to employees of the MDC responsible for establishing and implementing policy during these public comment meetings. Anglers are holding actual conversations with those in positions of authority and having a dialog on these issues. I'd encourage this to continue. Don't forget that you can send additional comments on this topic to the MDC using the link found above in this thread.

Very well attended meeting. Included many MSA members as well as prospective members. Good discussion with the MDC staff and among the anglers in attendance. Most seemed to be on the same page on the proposed regs (other than strong sentiment to keep Gasconade at 18" MLL and add the lower Big Piney as a true Trophy area rather than the 15" MLL as proposed. Also, heard several folks commenting on why not put the goggle eye minimum at 8" rather than 7" statewide. Some feel that more protection (restrictive regs) should be proposed for headwater reaches of our streams given impact of harvest on those more 'fragile' fisheries. After having just returned from an MSA outing at hosted by Greg Lamb at Meramec Scenic View lodge near Steelville over the weekend, it reaffirmed the belief of many that this section of the Meramec from Birds Nest down to Onondaga Cave represents some of the best smallmouth habitat on the Meramec -- and while already a fine fishery -- it could be truly world class with some more restrictive harvest regulations. Fore more reading on the smallmouth/goggle eye public comment process, check out the latest issue of The River Hills Traveler. The Pulaski Co. Outfitters Association came out strongly for keeping the 18" MLL on the middle Gasconade as it promotes not only better quality angling but tourism as well. The RHT also includes a fine article by Chief Grey Bear on fall fishing for bronzebacks on Ozark streams. The author made several great observations and it was good read with more than the typical fare you might find on the topic in a national publication. Springfield and Neosho meetings are this week. I'm not attending either as I already hit 3 last week alone. I may make it to Columbia on 10/19.

Attended St. Robert MDC meeting last night. Fairly well attended and fully staffed by MDC biologists, fisheries managers, enforcement personnel, etc. Held several productive discussions with both local anglers and canoe outfitters as well as MDC staff. General tenor of those attending seemed quite positive regarding expanding special regs on Big Piney while many seemed concerned with proposal to reduce regs on Gasconade trophy water from 18" MLL down to 15" MLL. Sentiment expressed was why not keep at 18/1 on Gasconade and then apply that reg to the lower Piney stretch -- at least from FLW (East Gate) downstream? Anglers - including tournament anglers -- seem to support the 18/1 reg on Gasconade which has been in place for some 20 years now and it attracts tourism as well for those seeking chance to catch larger bass on this productive stream reach. So, why change it? I cannot claim that this reflects the sentiment of all in attendance as I did not eavesdrop on every conversation. But since both the Piney and Gasconade each currently feature special regs sections, there seemed to be little support for keeping the smallie regs at the current 12"/6 fish statewide limits. And, in a more general sense, there was support for modifying statewide regs to a 15"/3 fish format among the crowd. Difference with the tournament anglers here -- at least from one knowledgeable observer -- is the sizeable presence of largemouth bass on the middle Gasconade above Jerome which are often targeted in these events. Also "keeper sized" spotted bass are present in the middle Gasconade in increasing numbers. So the 1 SMB creel limit has not been a big deterrent for holding tourneys in the Jerome area over the years given the species diversity present. Heard from several folks that the goggle eye reg should be set at 8" statewide vs. the 7" as proposed. Just seems like better size to use and is already reg in place on the various special regs areas. So keep it simple. In general, I have found the 2 public comment meetings I've attended thus far to be very productive in terms of being able to interact with MDC personnel on these issues and to hold a productive dialog. It gives anglers better feedback with individuals from the MDC with significant academic and practical experience on our stream fisheries. And, you'll find that most of these folks equally share the public's passion for chasing smallmouth bass/goggle eye on our rivers on their personal time. If you are able to make one of the 5 remaining meetings (Farmington tonight), Kirkwood (10/8), Sprinfield (10/13), Neosho (10/15) or Columbia (10/19), I invite you to take this unique opportunity to hold a productive two-way conversation with both MDC personnel and other anglers in attendance. If you cannot make it, I encourage folks to post their comments online at www.mdc.mo.gov/node/9092 Online comments and written comments from the meetings will be treated equally in gauging angler sentiments towards these proposals. And, if you want the MDC to do more, feel free to tell them that. This is the public's chance to have direct impact on shaping the MDC's smallmouth bass/goggle eye management plan for years to come. Don't sit on the sidelines.

Fairly well attended. Lots of various MDC folks and one Commissioner. More of a small group format without any sort of formal presentation. Spoke with group of CRSA (Current River Smallmouth Association) members who run tournaments in Van Buren/Doniphan area. Format includes weigh ins but all fish are released following that. Strong C&R ethic amongst them with several claiming they used to personally keep smallies years ago but now see value of C&R. Their concern is the 1 fish limit proposed on Current from Two Rivers down to Van Buren. This would greatly change how they run a tournament and impact their enjoyment of the sport. We get that aspect and invited them to express their concerns to the MDC via online/written comments regarding the regulations. While MSA is not a tournament-oriented group, we also are not looking to alienate other groups of conservation-minded anglers. We suggested that this group propose some sort of compromise that would allow them to hold their events yet still help achieve an objective of restricted harvest for the general public to improve overall fishing quality. Moving upstream/downstream boundaries of the proposed area on Current is one possibility that could be explored. But that issue is one that their membership is better suited to address than that of MSA. We were also able to - hopefully - dispel a few misconceptions about MSA that rural anglers may hold. 1 = we are NOT against gigging of rough fish; we are against gigging of sportfish and poaching as all sportsmen should be; 2 = we have never espoused mandatory catch & release -- our position has always been one that encourages voluntary C&R; 3 = we want all smallmouth fisheries to be managed as 'trophy' waters -- not true, we actually proposed a statewide regs change to 15"/3 fish creel limit back in 2010 which the MDC did not embrace favoring their Special Regs waters approach. We feel that the 15/3 reg may have more widespread appeal among the state's anglers and would probably enhance angling quality on a broader scale than the specific waters approach. We continue to believe this but since that proposal is not currently on the table with the MDC, we are supportive of the special regs expansion which they are currently proposing. As noted above, it is up to the MDC to educate anglers to support and comply with their proposed regulations. We simply advocate for our positions in support of smallmouth bass conservation. MDC is the organization that establishes policy and regulates compliance therewith. I mention the CRSA angler concerns merely to educate readers here of their situation.This is not intended to spawn a wide ranging discussion on the pros and cons of river tournaments. Although MSA membership does not sponsor such events we do believe that a lot of benefits and expansion of the C&R message have been spread from events like these over the years. Yes, some would prefer that all tournaments involved Catch, Photo and Release but many smaller circuits aren't really set up in a manner to make that effective. Provided the fish are cared for in aerated live wells and then carefully released post weigh in, that seems to be acceptable. Now do some fish perish if water temps get too high, fish are too stressed and/or they're deep hooked -- sure some do. But I am not looking to rehash the merits of such events here. One thing we came away with from Van Buren is that a lot of these guys know how to catch nice fish on that river and they genuinely care about the resource both for today and future generations.

As the original thread on this topic has swerved way off the intended path, I thought I would start a new thread concerning the upcoming public comment meetings on the proposed smallmouth/goggle eye regulations. The first meeting is next Tuesday in Van Buren and (most likely) will primarily address the proposed regs on the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. Given the location and that the Current presently has no special management areas for smallmouth along its length, I am suspecting that this meeting will be the most contentious one for the MDC. Based on the information presented to the MO Smallmouth Alliance by the MDC back in May, it does appear that the MDC has significant scientific data to support their proposed 15"/1 SMB regs on the Current. At the present time, the MDC is targeting the 33-mile stretch from Two Rivers (Jacks Fork confluence) to Van Buren for this regulation. MSA has put forth the idea of extending this regulation some 18 miles upstream to the lower Round Spring access where the horsepower limits change. Not sure if the MDC will consider this or not, but it seems to be an option worth discussing. In speaking with two of the MDC Commissioners at the CFM Affiliate Summit last week, I believe it would certainly help the case for these new regs on the Current and the expanded regs on Jacks Fork if conservation-minded anglers showed up at this meeting in numbers to express their support for more restricted harvest. It is hard to say how many local anglers may attend who might be against a change in the status quo, but those in favor of more progressive regulations need to be willing to attend and state their support for change. Also worth lobbying for is to request that the MDC keep the 18" MLL on the upper Jacks Fork (Buck Hollow to Alley Spring) in place. I realize they want to simplify the current special management area regs by going to the 15" limit. But let's at least bring this idea up at the meeting in Van Buren for them to consider. I realize the Van Buren is pretty far from most urban areas - it is 3-hour drive for me. But anyone who can take the time to come out next Tuesday it would be appreciated. We will have some MSA representation there. Next meetings are next week in St. Robert, Farmington and Kirkwood. We'll be there as well.

In any comments sent to the MDC I would recommend that anglers primarily focus on the slate of proposed regulations in their remarks. Tell them what you like about them or what you don't. Once that is covered, then feel free to express your other concerns regarding management of this resource. Angler comments concerning this slate of proposed regs themselves will likely be taken more seriously at this time than those dealing with enforcement, gigging, poaching, access, fishing pressure, etc. Those are all real issues to deal with, of course, but we need to make sure there is sufficient support for these new regs as presented and/or for the MDC to possibly modify them in some manner to provide even greater protection of the resource. For example, anglers might suggest extending the boundaries of these proposed stretches or adding regs to adjacent tributaries (Huzzah/Courtois). With enough anglers clamoring for these types of changes, we may get somewhere. Bringing up the other issues, while not unimportant, will not help advance this slate of proposed regs. We cannot get everything we want or the resource requires all at once. But let's get what we can when we can get it. Please don't take this as a criticism. We just need to make sure that those in favor of these proposed regs far outnumber those in favor of the status quo. Overall these regs are a good step in the right direction. Other than reducing the 18" limit on Jacks/Gasconade to 15", I am all for what they want to do. If you don't like that part of the proposal, say so. Perhaps the MDC will listen to a cogent argument here. If you want more special regs areas, ask for those as well with some specifics. Let's make sure this ball keeps rolling.

Just posted some comments via this portal. Easy to use. Thanks for uploading this link.

see info below from Craig Fuller with the MDC. Lots of opportunity for public comment opportunity both in person and via e-mail. So let your voices be heard! As you know, we are currently planning to conduct public meetings to gather citizen input and make adjustments to the proposed Smallmouth Bass and Rock Bass regulations as needed and appropriate. Those meetings will take place in October of this year and will be located throughout the Ozarks. This is the same process that we have used with other key topics like Deer regulations, the Blue Catfish regulation on Truman Lake and Lake of the Ozarks and the Elk reintroduction. The public meetings will be held from 6:00pm – 8:00pm and, have been scheduled as follows: 9/29-Van Buren at The River Centre at The Landing. 110 E. Carter, Van Buren, MO 63965 10/1-Kansas City at Burr Oak Woods CNC. 1401 NW Park Road Blue Springs, MO 64015 10/5-St. Robert at the St. Robert Community Center. 114 J.H. Williamson Dr. St. Robert, MO 65584 10/6-Farmington at the Memorial United Methodist Church in the Parlor Room. 425 North St. Farmington, MO 63640 10/8-St. Louis at the Powder Valley CNC. 11715 Cragwold Road Kirkwood, MO 63122 10/13-Springfield at the Springfield CNC. 4601 S Nature Center Way Springfield, MO 65804 10/15-Neosho at the National Fish Hatchery. 520 Park St. Neosho, MO 64850 10/19-Columbia at the Central Regional Office and Conservation Research Center. 3500 E Gans Road Columbia, MO 65201 We are working to take public comments on-line via our public web page at www.mdc.mo.gov and that should be up and running soon. I look forward to your participation as we work together to improve and continue Smallmouth Bass and Rock Bass fishing in Missouri. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Craig Fuller, Fisheries Management Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation 2350 S Jefferson Lebanon, MO 65536 417/532-7612 x224 Craig.fuller@mdc.mo.gov

Agreed. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else who might not be as familiar with what MSA had proposed to MDC back in 2010. Yes, MSA intends to support MDC on this while possibly pushing for more on the Meramec as noted previously. Frankly, strong localized support for extending Meramec regs along with Huzzah/Courtois will probably go much further than what MSA guys who mostly live in urban areas want to happen. CWC -- rally your Meramec angling brethren when the time comes.

Yeah, MSA agrees that this a good step in the right direction. Just to be clear, MSA did not recommend 15/1 or 18/1 regulations for smallmouth bass on a statewide basis. Our Blue Ribbon committee quickly realized that type of regulation would never make any sense on a widespread basis given the diverse practices of anglers. Rather we suggested that the statewide regs be changed to a 15 inch MLL with a 3 SMB creel limit -- allowing some amount of harvest for those inclined while protecting a much larger portion of the population by delaying harvest. We did suggest expansion of existing 15/1 areas as well as the implementation of additional 18/1 regs on a selected basis across the state. While not as comprehensive as MSA had hoped for, it is a good improvement over what we have now and will hopefully offer a path forward to continued improvement down the road.

You're welcome. Just trying to keep things moving.

That is a classic, Joe. Or this could be expanded to "black bass lives matter" - unless you happen to be a non-native spot from Kentucky. More serious comments on the proposed smallmouth regulations can be directed to the MDC's Smallmouth Bass program coordinator, fisheries biologist Craig Fuller at Craig.Fuller@mdc.mo.gov. I believe he is in the Lebanon office. Angler input can still have some impact on the scope of these proposed regulations. Let the MDC know your thoughts, comments and concerns either via e-mail, phone call or at the upcoming public comment meetings - dates/locations TBA by MDC. Please be respectful in your communication with the MDC as it does appear they are sincerely trying to be responsive to angler concerns. Yes, we would like them to do more regs areas, consider changing the overall state length/creel limits, and further address other related issues such as illegal gigging of sportfish, seasonal concentration concerns (Black River/Clearwater/etc). But these proposed regs are certainly an overall positive for conservation minded anglers and the resource. It would be helpful if the MDC would re-consider imposing some additional protection on SMB/Neoshos or otherwise in some of the SW MO streams. Only regs there are on James and Elk. I realize they reviewed several other streams here during their White Paper project, but the distribution of regs could certainly be expanded. Even with this addition of some 113 miles of special regs water, still just 460+ miles, or 16%, of the Ozarks 2200+ miles of its major SMB streams as listed in the Missouri/Ozark Waterways floaters' guide are under special management. This leaves the vast majority under the maximum sustained yield-based 12-inch, 6 fish creel limit. Progress, yes, but we need to continue to push for more progressive management of this sportfish while the MDC remains focused on this species long-displayed in the agency's recognized logo -- our native smallmouth bass. Harvest oriented management approaches take a long time to dispel. It is up to we anglers to let our voices be heard in this regard. So don't stop now.

In response to our request, the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance just received some additional information on the new/expanded smallmouth bass special regs areas from MDC Fisheries biologist Craig Fuller. Here goes: Current River "The proposed boundaries for the Current River SMBSMA would extend from at least the confluence of the Jacks Fork to the Van Buren Riverfront Park. This new 33 mile addition would begin and end at accesses which are readily identifiable, with the intent to minimize issues of anglers going from less restrictive to more restrictive areas. The proposed area utilizes modeling information from the recent exploitation study, which indicates this reach would most likely benefit by implementing a 15-inch MLL. Also, the boundaries take into consideration the seasonal movement that Smallmouth Bass have demonstrated in recent telemetry studies." MSA Comment - perhaps with some additional public input the MDC may consider extending this regs still farther up the Current to Round Spring where the horsepower regs change -- anglers are used to this line of demarcation and this would help improve the smallie fishing still more on this very nice stretch of water from there to Two Rivers. MSA had proposed an 18 inch limit on the middle Current back in 2010 but this at least meets us halfway. Jacks Fork - " The proposed boundaries for the Jacks Fork SMBSMA would extend from Hwy 17 to the confluence with the Current River, an expansion of 13.5 miles. This area (total of 37.5 miles) would join with the proposed Current River SMBSMA to simplify regulations and minimize the issues of anglers going from less restrictive to more restrictive areas. Also, the proposed area considers results from a recent telemetry study, which shows Smallmouth Bass have the potential for significant seasonal movements." MSA Comment - still wish they wouldn't drop from 18 to 15 inches on the upper Jacks but this will likely be an effective change on the most popular section of Jacks Fork. Big Piney - "The proposed boundaries for the Big Piney River SMBSMA would extend from Slabtown Access to the confluence of the Gasconade River. This expansion (31 miles) would provide a total of 46 miles on the Big Piney River with identical Smallmouth Bass regulations. The proposed area would eliminate anglers going from less restrictive to more restrictive areas, downstream of Ross Bridge Access into the Gasconade River. Also, the proposed area would offer more protection during seasonal Smallmouth Bass movements" MSA Comment - MSA had proposed an 18 inch limit on lower BP from Fort to Gasconade back in 2010. Changing to Gasc to 15 but adding 31 miles (albeit some if hard to access) to BP regs protection is a nice step forward. Meramec -- "The proposed boundaries for the Meramec River SMBSMA would extend from the Highway 8 bridge to the railroad crossing at Bird’s Nest. This extension (8 miles) would provide a total of 23 miles on the Meramec River with identical Smallmouth Bass regulations, while providing clear, well defined geographical boundaries for anglers. Also, the proposed area would offer more protection during seasonal Smallmouth Bass movements as it encompasses the Maramec Spring area. In reference to the area mentioned in MSA comments (Birds Nest to Hwy H): this downstream expansion on the Meramec River would create problems with anglers floating from a less restrictive area (Courtois and Huzzah creeks) into a more restrictive area (Meramec River), which is a situation we want to avoid if at all possible." MSA comment - appreciate extension of 15 inch limit in the trout area purportedly frequented by both smallies and those trying to catch them in the winter months. Could fix the "problems" downstream if they just put Courtois/Huzzah under 15 inch limit as well and took 15 inch reg on Meramec down to Onondaga -- but perhaps folks can lobby for that expansion at the meetings and in future years as additional protection for these seasonally migrating fish on these streams. Big River -- "The proposed boundaries for the Big River SMBSMA would be from Council Bluff Lake dam to its confluence with the Meramec River. This change will simplify and standardize black bass regulations by adding the remaining 27 miles of the Big River to the SMBSMA." MSA comment - nice to see this additional protection on the upper river as many on this forum have called for. Now the entire river is under 15/1 regs on smallies. We need to work to bring streams like the Bourbeuse under similar management given its potential and predominance of spotted bass particularly below Noser Mill. There will be more on this and related topics in the next MSA newsletter. I invite those interested to sign up at www.missourismallmouthalliance.org. Thanks.

MDC did some analysis of shifts in angling and harvest-oriented pressure on the first 3 regs areas on Big Piney, Big and Meramec back in the early 1990s. That info is contained in their White Paper published in late 2009 as I recall. In a nutshell they found that initially fishing hours decreased dramatically in the special regs areas and moved to 12/6 regs areas up and downstream. This was most notable on the Meramec section. After a few years the numbers became closer to baseline but the overall angling pressure on both the Meramec regs and control area never did return to their pre-regs enactment levels -- at least at the time this data was gathered from about 1990 to about 1996. See the White Paper for more -- good luck finding on MDC website = ha ha. To my knowledge no other angling effort studies were performed on the other special regs areas in the state. I think the MDC is comfortable that the consumptive-oriented anglers went elsewhere as more C&R guys focused on the regs areas. Angler Survey results showed that most were aware of and OK with the special regs areas thereby somewhat validating MDC's management area approach. On the tributary migration route - yes, it would be interesting to see the tagging results for the Courtois as well as the Black River from the Exploitation study regarding where and when were these tagged fish caught and were they harvested or released. It seems that vast majority of Courtois fish were released -- many likely caught by CWC87 -- leading to the 7% computed harvest rate while harvest rate on Black was several times higher than this. I know that many Courtois fish in the cooler months were caught from the main stem of the Meramec but I have no idea where the fish were taken on Black other than noting that over 1/2 of tagged fish were caught within 30 days of the season opener in May. Then likely that fewer tagged fish made it back down to Clearwater by the winter months. Now for those untagged Black River fish - that's another story that would take a separate research project by MDC to investigate. Clearwater has NO minimum length limit with no closed season in play during winter making them vulnerable to harvest when concentrated there. So Ron's concerns appear quite legitimate to me. Al Agnew may be best to expound on seasonal fish migrations out of and into tributary streams given his vast knowledge of the Ozarks. My take is that Little Piney fish likely move down into Gasconade in colder months as it has better wintering habitat then migrate upstream on both LP and BP in spring to find spawning areas. Fish on Courtois and Huzzah migrate to/from Meramec for sure. Likely that fish move in/out of Little and Big Niangua into Lake of Ozarks seasonally - at least they get 15" MLL on the Lake. James and Table Rock -- both have 15 inch MLL in those most affected sections. I doubt that many fish move into/out of Bourbeuse/Big into Meramec as both of these slower streams should have suitable wintering habitat -- but that's just a guess on my part. I am sure there are many other migration situations across MO/AR as well -- Crooked/White/Buffalo system that others would be more knowledgeable of that I. MDC seems to be seeking to align special regs on Gasconade/lower Big Piney with their new proposal -- details still sketchy -- to account for the MLL discrepancy. Also planning to have Jacks Fork and middle Current under same 15/1 regs regime which makes sense. Osage Fork/upper Gasconade still an issue above Hazelgreen access -- another reason why MSA suggested upper Gasc be on 15/1 regs. Courtois/Huzzah/Meramec situation may complicate with expansion of 15/1 regs on Meramec downstream -- presumably they will go past confluence with Huzzah above Onondaga but not sure as MDC has not divulged its proposed regs plan yet. In addition to seeking more standardized regs, MDC is lengthening several of the management areas to account for seasonal migrations. Questions have been posed to MDC by MSA on this topic awaiting response.

Really it's the combination of natural and harvest mortality that is the determining relationship in the MDC's modeling. They can fairly accurately determine total mortality in the population and then try to calculate harvest mortality using tactics such as the reward tagging study. Sure, there are lots of potential problems in coming up with that -- guys don't turn in tags, guys say they released a fish when they kept it, etc. Once they subtract harvest mortality from total mortality they're left with mortality from everything else as "natural mortality." I know there's more to this equation but these are basics as I understand them. Many question the calculation of harvest mortality for the reasons noted above. Many would believe that the MDC's harvest rates are understated but that's largely anecdotal. A low harvest rate means a high natural mortality rate since total mortality is a given based on size/age distribution in the population. Leaving many to then question the high natural mortality rates on adult SMB. Most are puzzled by what natural causes that a 12-inch smallmouth can die from other than C&R mortality, otters, they're too big for a heron and probably for eagles/ospreys as well by that point. Floods and drought happen as well as disease, but it does seem sort of strange to many that we could be seeing 30% natural mortality of adult SMB in our streams. Maybe that's correct, but it just strikes many as unbelievably high. MSA has asked MDC for additional clarification on this topic. If harvest is understated and natural mortality is overstated -- a two way street as these are the only two factors in the mortality equation -- then the MDC's modeling results would be highly inaccurate. In areas of high angler mortality, special regs work very well to improve a fishery. But in areas with low harvest and high natural mortality, harvest is not the limiting factor rending the imposition of restricted harvest regs much less effective. I think it quite difficult to positively impact natural mortality of adult SMB unless we can turn back the clock to put all the gravel back in the hills, restore all of our watersheds to 1850s conditions and remove river otters from headwater reaches. Other states have done things to improve spawning success / recruitment by placing log structures in rivers/lakes while habitat improvement/bank stabilization can be effective on smaller streams. Very difficult to have a major impact on larger river habitat -- and quite expensive. So much for the science behind their thinking. Now, we need to convince them that a majority of Ozark anglers want this sport fish managed as a sport fish with harvest availability of limited importance. That's what the MDC seems to be hung up on in taking a more aggressive approach towards imposing higher MLLs that may negatively impact yield. Back in 2010, MSA proposed 18/1 regs on Gasconade (expansion of existing area upstream), lower Big Piney (to match existing Gasconade regs), middle Current (in the Two Rivers/Powder Mill area that is currently in play) and the Meramec (Birds Nest down to Blue Springs Ck). Now MDC is looking to change Gasconade to 15"/add lower Piney to 15", implement 15" reg on middle Current and extend 15" limit area on Meramec. So, while MDC didn't come all our way with 18-inch regs, they seem to be proposing to implement 15" regs in these same areas. We also proposed new 15"/1 regs for NFOW, Bryant, Courtois/Huzzah and Bourbeuse as well as extending 15/1 regs upstream on Meramec, Gasconade, James and Big Piney. MDC does not seem prepared to do anything on these streams although 2 of them (Courtois and NFOW) were included in Exploitation study along with Black and Castor. We did not propose any new regs on SWMO streams (other than James) as the MDC had already evaluated many of those during their White Paper effort and had decided against imposing special regs on them (other than on Elk River). And, although it has great habitat and potential, Niangua was left off the list due to Niangua Darter concerns (the MDC's not ours). The Eleven Point features more special regs by species than any stream in the Ozarks and folks don't seem to have a problem understanding those - 15 inch SMB, 8 inch goggle eye, 18 inch walleye, Blue/White Ribbon trout. So, MSA did try to get a broad distribution of more special regs waters in our effort back in 2010. Agreed that we need to ask those future oriented questions as well about how will MDC evaluate the effectiveness of any special regs going forward. I will send you a PM to have further conversation on these other topics -- if you are interested in doing so.

We should be able to ask MDC representatives at the upcoming public comment meetings about why not keep 18-inch limit on Jacks and Gasconade rather than switch to 15 inch limits and/or why not institute some 18 inch MLLs or even C&R on a few stream sections in better quality watersheds if anglers who fish those areas will support them. Trying some of these things on a limited basis to provide sport anglers with some better opportunities to enjoy their sport at the highest level is really not that much to ask. Harvest oriented anglers have the vast majority the fisheries at their disposal under the 12-inch, 6 fish statewide limits today. Again, I am encouraged that the MDC is looking to do more with expansion of 15/1 regs in selected areas. It just would be good for us to keep things rolling in this direction rather than settle for these upcoming regs to be the totality of what the MDC is willing to consider. If angler harvest is already low on Courtois or Huzzah for that matter, then it is not likely that a large segment of the angling public would rise up against imposing more restrictive or even 'trophy' regs there. However, the stated natural mortality rate on Courtois from the Exploitation Study was at 30% -- about on par with most of the other streams tested. So, this doesn't fit the MDC's modeling criteria for special regs as computed angler harvest mortality was only 7% there. Some have expressed their reservations about these calculated rates as they seem to vary widely depending on the fishery -- questions on this have been posed by MSA directly to the MDC within the past week. There may be some possibility of getting a few test streams set up as Trophy Waters, but given where the MDC seems to be headed on this front, that would likely take a broad base of vocal angler support to make that happen.

I think that stream Smallie Bigs is looking for is Big Buffalo Creek if I'm not mistaken. You might need to contact retired MDC biologist Spence Turner to have some of that data pulled from the MDC archives.

No name given. His note was a copy of an original, so it seems he must leave these little love letters routinely to folks who park at Hwy P bridge at Mill Creek. Wasn't feeling like fighting at that time -- as he was packing and I wasn't. Him firing that weapon as a warning shot created a lot different vibe than if he had just verbally admonished me. I did not feel like sticking around to have a conversation with this unseen guy. With all due respect, it is easier to woulda coulda shoulda when not in the middle of this type of situation. There have been a few other occasions in the past wherein I've become more aggravated at a landowner for giving me some trouble about floating through their property (a few times on Crooked Creek down Ham's way incidentally) when I had every legal right to be there. Those did not result in confrontations but my mood was much different following them. That gunshot had a pretty big impact on my thinking at the time last Friday afternoon. Now if someone wants to step it up a notch and plead their case to this particular landowner about trespass laws/rights/etc, feel free. But I wasn't up for that last Friday.

SpoonDog, You raise many good points and have offered a multitude of ideas and potential projects and initiatives that conservation-minded anglers and/or an organization such as MSA could undertake. Generally there is no problem coming up with projects and ideas that may be helpful to varying degrees. The problem lies in having sufficient manpower and resources to actually DO any of these things successfully. I don't believe that we've met, but if you are interested in lending your energies towards getting things done -- either as part of MSA or as an individual -- I welcome that for sure. If it be your intention, I suggest we get together along with the MSA board and figure out which projects and initiatives would be most helpful in achieving mutual objectives to improve and protect our Ozark SMB stream resources. And, then determine the resources and manpower necessary from volunteers to get those accomplished. As far as MSA's position on the MDC's nascent SMB regs proposal is concerned, despite the displeasure expressed by certain of our members on this forum, the organization itself will certainly support it. While not as comprehensive as our organization first proposed to the MDC back in 2010 when Al Agnew, myself and other MSA members met with Regulations Committee of the MDC, these regs clearly represent a step in the right direction. Details on their proposal have yet to be published, but we welcome expanding special regs water on the Big Piney, Meramec, Jacks Fork and Big Rivers while adding a new area on Current River. Hopefully, the MDC will continue to refine its SMB management plan further in the coming years. Although MSA lacks financial clout and remains a pretty small group today, I do not believe it presumptuous that these new proposed regs would not have come into being without MSA’s insistence over the years to enact additional quality-based regs on our waters. We planted the seed back in 2010, and after 5+ years of study by the MDC (angler survey, exploitation study, movement study, updated info on growth rates/ages/special regs waters), the MDC is now coming forth with something substantive as a result. Again, may not be everything that MSA or many other anglers want and it may not result in widespread improvement of our stream fisheries; but, it is definitely a step in the right direction in MSA's opinion. Thankfully, as you point out, today quality-based (restrictive) regs are unnecessary to prevent a collapse of our stream smallmouth populations. Thanks to more widespread conservation practices over the past 50 years and a modicum of protection afforded by the12-inch MLL, our streams contain good numbers of smallmouth bass and are self-sustaining. So the call for enacting more restrictive harvest regulations is indeed a "socially-based" sentiment aimed at increasing sport anglers' enjoyment of the resource in practicing their favorite social activity in which they like to engage - fishing. However, regs such as these are also scientifically-based in that restricting and/or delaying harvest of adult SMB will certainly result in more catchable fish in the stream and more fish both below and above the desired legal length limit -- whatever that may be. The MDC's research and modeling clearly support that premise although the effectiveness of various regulations varies depending upon the nature of the fishery. So the science works to produce more and larger average size fish if you protect them from harvest for a longer period of their natural lives. The stumbling block remains the MDC's predisposition to equally value the impact on angler harvest/yield in this equation. In a situation where angling quality -- exhibited by angler catch rates, average sizes, etc -- is gained at the expense of the pounds of harvestable fish, which is the case supported on 5 of the 6 stretches in the exploitation study, quality regs then take a back seat. This sentiment is clear in the body of the MDC’s Exploitation Study report. They don't want to promise much better fishing, including more keepers, only to leave the consumption-oriented portion of the angling public be disappointed that they cannot take home as many pounds of filets as before. It does not appear that the MDC has the political will to take that chance. This then leads them to the less aggressive path they appear to have chosen at this time. Regarding angler support, the 2011 Angler Survey showed solid support for the existing special regs areas as well as an increase in the statewide MLL and a reduction in the creel limit. Generally about 50% of respondents would support an increase in the MLL and an even greater percentage a reduction in the creel limit. In addition, there was very strong support -- over 70% -- for the establishment of catch and release regulations on certain streams/stretches in that survey. So, there does seem to be good support here in Missouri for improving the resource through more progressive management in the form of restricted harvest. It just appears that the MDC is not sufficiently convinced of this condition to go too far out on that limb with more widespread changes. As far as other states go, some of the more restrictive regulations were indeed brought about, in part, by strong localized support by conservation-minded anglers and/or organizations. The 12-20 inch slot on the upper Mississippi, the 22-inch minimum on Chequamegon Bay of Lake Superior and other areas are situations where groups of anglers (including The Smalllmouth Alliance in Minnesota) were influential enough to prompt fisheries managers to enact regs to preserve and improve outstanding fisheries. Other special regs like those 13-17 inch protected slot limits in place on many SMB rivers in eastern Tennessee had less organized angler support with more of the impetus coming from the state's fisheries managers seeking to enhance angler success. The smallmouth bass management program in the state of Arkansas, where no significant organized stream smallmouth bass constituency exists, is, arguably, much more comprehensive than what we currently have here in Missouri. In that state, having very similar geography and angler composition, some 450+ miles of SMB water are under 14-inch, 2 fish limits while another 135 miles feature 18-inch, one fish limits (Crooked, Buffalo, Kings, Little Missouri). Presently, there are about 310 miles of water under the 15/1 regs here in MO with another 45 or so under and 18/1 that are slated for reduction to 15/1 going forward. In addition, managed stream sections are generally much more lengthy in Arkansas allowing for more widespread protection of SMB from harvest until these higher minimum length limits are reached. Extending the length of management areas appears to be a component of Missouri’s new proposed regs which is welcomed. So, angler support is definitely part of the equation, but fisheries managers also need to be willing to take a bit of leadership here as well. Let's make sure to let the MDC know our thoughts and concerns at these upcoming meetings in a constructive manner. Support what they are trying to do but continue to challenge them to move further for the betterment of the resource and to promote the enjoyment of our sport. And remember that MSA can sure use the help of any folks who want to make a tangible contribution to smallmouth bass conservation.

At urging of posters, I contacted Phelps Co Sheriff's Dept yesterday to report the incident. Deputy said they'd look into it as that type of landowner response is not acceptable. It might be awhile before I head back down that away regardless.

We need to be sure take what we see on this forum to the public meetings with MDC. They hear from the MO Smallmouth Alliance members here and there but it will be even more important to them to hear from the general public -- whether folks are members of MSA, BASS or some other angling group or not. Agree that we may never see world class SMB fishing here in Ozarks - for a whole host of reasons -- but it can certainly be better than it is with some better management, angler education, enforcement and a change in angler attitudes. It would be nice if the MDC shared our passion for improving this resource as much as we do.